3 ms·

[by whom?] I do subscribe to this point of view. One needs to look at the actions Stalin took prior to the war. I think Rezun documented it fairly well. And

[by whom?] I do subscribe to this point of view. One needs to look at the actions Stalin took prior to the war. I think Rezun documented it fairly well. And there is a great impetus to whitewash history - back then and even today.

the_af 8y ago
> by whom? Note that this hypothesis is almost entirely based on Viktor Suvorov's work, which has problems. From Wikipedia [0] (and also from Glantz, which I have read): "Among the noted critics of Suvorov's work are Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, American military historian David Glantz, and Russian military historians Makhmut Gareev, Lev Bezymensky, and Dmitri Volkogonov. Many other western scholars, such as Teddy J. Uldricks, Derek Watson, Hugh Ragsdale, Roger Reese, Stephen Blank, and Robin Edmonds, agree that the Suvorov's major weakness is "that the author does not reveal his sources" (Ingmar Oldberg). Historian Cynthia A. Roberts is even more categorical, claiming that Suvorov's writings have 'virtually no evidentiary base'." and > "David M. Glantz disputes the argument that the Red Army was deployed in an offensive stance in 1941. According to Glantz, the Red Army was only in a state of partial mobilization in July 1941, from which neither effective defensive or offensive actions could be offered without considerable delay" and Beevor shows serious doubts (note that a 41 winter attack is not what the original hypothesis is about): > "Antony Beevor writes that "the Red Army was simply not in a state to launch a major offensive in the summer of 1941, and in any case Hitler's decision to invade had been made considerably earlier." However, he also notes that "it cannot be excluded that Stalin... may have been considering a preventive attack in the winter of 1941 or more probably in 1942..." There's some support for this theory in the West, but very little. The vast majority of works seem to discount it. It seems to be a fringe theory. Of course, eventually the Soviet Union and Germany would have been at war, what with Hitler's ideology being anti "Bolshevism" and considering most Slavs to be subhumans to be ethnically cleansed as part of Generalplan Ost. One other thing. You also wrote: > Stalin intended to roll over Europe armed with Lenin's concept of a world revolution. That doesn't seem to have been Stalin's plan [1], at least initially. It was precisely a point of contention with his political opponents that Stalin favored the "Socialism in one country" position instead of "world revolution". ---- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controv... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country
- LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
  This seems to clash with the export of the revolution to other countrys during the cold war. Even in the early years , when stalin was still alive. Its also hard to imagine, that any dictator willingly would hold back- after he already coluded with another dictator to share the spoils of war (poland).
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    I don't think any historian disputes that the USSR was planning to go to war against Germany eventually. The dispute is that the USSR was planning to go to war in late 1941/early 1942.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      Also militaries plan for lots of scenarios to be prepared it doesn't mean someone actually has any intention of using those plans - e.g. War Plan Red for the USA vs British Empire in the 1930s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
  - the_af 8y ago
    Why does it clash? After WWII and the start of the Cold War, the world stage had radically changed. Some world powers had been diminished while others were ascendant, and plans were redrawn. The specific claim that's likely false is that the Soviet Union, as early as 1941, planned to conquer Europe (as part of some bid to implement "world communism") and specifically attack Germany, and that Hitler's Barbarossa was some sort of "preemptive/defensive" strike. The first goes against Stalin's philosophy at the time, the latter goes against what we know about Red Army readiness and also what we know about Hitler's racial ideology.
- gandhium 8y ago
  > Stalin favored the "Socialism in one country" Yes. Incidentally that one country had to have Moscow as the capital, but span across whole Europe and most of the Asia.

the_af 8y ago

> by whom? Note that this hypothesis is almost entirely based on Viktor Suvorov's work, which has problems. From Wikipedia [0] (and also from Glantz, which I have read): "Among the noted critics of Suvorov's work are Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, American military historian David Glantz, and Russian military historians Makhmut Gareev, Lev Bezymensky, and Dmitri Volkogonov. Many other western scholars, such as Teddy J. Uldricks, Derek Watson, Hugh Ragsdale, Roger Reese, Stephen Blank, and Robin Edmonds, agree that the Suvorov's major weakness is "that the author does not reveal his sources" (Ingmar Oldberg). Historian Cynthia A. Roberts is even more categorical, claiming that Suvorov's writings have 'virtually no evidentiary base'." and > "David M. Glantz disputes the argument that the Red Army was deployed in an offensive stance in 1941. According to Glantz, the Red Army was only in a state of partial mobilization in July 1941, from which neither effective defensive or offensive actions could be offered without considerable delay" and Beevor shows serious doubts (note that a 41 winter attack is not what the original hypothesis is about): > "Antony Beevor writes that "the Red Army was simply not in a state to launch a major offensive in the summer of 1941, and in any case Hitler's decision to invade had been made considerably earlier." However, he also notes that "it cannot be excluded that Stalin... may have been considering a preventive attack in the winter of 1941 or more probably in 1942..." There's some support for this theory in the West, but very little. The vast majority of works seem to discount it. It seems to be a fringe theory. Of course, eventually the Soviet Union and Germany would have been at war, what with Hitler's ideology being anti "Bolshevism" and considering most Slavs to be subhumans to be ethnically cleansed as part of Generalplan Ost. One other thing. You also wrote: > Stalin intended to roll over Europe armed with Lenin's concept of a world revolution. That doesn't seem to have been Stalin's plan [1], at least initially. It was precisely a point of contention with his political opponents that Stalin favored the "Socialism in one country" position instead of "world revolution". ---- [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controv... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
This seems to clash with the export of the revolution to other countrys during the cold war. Even in the early years , when stalin was still alive. Its also hard to imagine, that any dictator willingly would hold back- after he already coluded with another dictator to share the spoils of war (poland).
- jcranmer 8y ago
  I don't think any historian disputes that the USSR was planning to go to war against Germany eventually. The dispute is that the USSR was planning to go to war in late 1941/early 1942.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Also militaries plan for lots of scenarios to be prepared it doesn't mean someone actually has any intention of using those plans - e.g. War Plan Red for the USA vs British Empire in the 1930s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
- the_af 8y ago
  Why does it clash? After WWII and the start of the Cold War, the world stage had radically changed. Some world powers had been diminished while others were ascendant, and plans were redrawn. The specific claim that's likely false is that the Soviet Union, as early as 1941, planned to conquer Europe (as part of some bid to implement "world communism") and specifically attack Germany, and that Hitler's Barbarossa was some sort of "preemptive/defensive" strike. The first goes against Stalin's philosophy at the time, the latter goes against what we know about Red Army readiness and also what we know about Hitler's racial ideology.
gandhium 8y ago
> Stalin favored the "Socialism in one country" Yes. Incidentally that one country had to have Moscow as the capital, but span across whole Europe and most of the Asia.